It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

Originally Posted by God-Like

I had my [realisations before I came across non duality as a teaching . I didn't even know what it mean't . What I have been emphasising is that my realisations didn't reveal anything of the sort apart from there is only what you are, which was concluded and not realised.

I'm curious what path(s) and practice(s) you engaged in that freed you from the mind's conditioning?

I'm also curious about a realization that isn't a realization but a conclusion. From my perspective that's an intellectual realization and not an experiential realization. This is best explained in this excellent video. https://youtu.be/Ku8cCrdh4Ic

No disrespect intended but it seems to me this is why you are having difficulty with what I post. I'm using intellect and language (analogy and metaphor) to convey the experiential and precisely because you cannot peek into my experience. I have no other way to relate it aside from intellect and language and both fall woefully short of the experience.

[ZainMd]

When a mighty waves hit the shores.
The not so mighty bubbles are in a daze.
Where is my mighty body.
Ohh....how they missed the sea.
Or did they?

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm curious what path(s) and practice(s) you engaged in that freed you from the mind's conditioning?

I experienced a lot of sufferings at a point in my life that took me within myself . I undertook yoga and meditation on a daily basis and after about 8 years I transcended self, the mind, the world .

Within this timeframe I started to engage with the cosmos and the universal mind .

It wasn't my intention to Self realise, I didn't really know at this point what it was or meant, I was quite naturally drawn within myself to a place where there was no suffering .

My daily practice (which isn't now a practice) has carried on for 20 plus years .

I appreciate you asking me about my path/practice because much of what this thread has been about was peeps judging me about my lack of so called experience and realisations . It's ignorance of the highest degree .

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

also curious about a realization that isn't a realization but a conclusion. From my perspective that's an intellectual realization and not an experiential realization. This is best explained in this excellent video. https://youtu.be/Ku8cCrdh4Ic

This is the whole point JASG . I have asked the forum about what is realised that is beyond mind . I have explained that beyond the mind is beyond the thought of Self or non duality or the world .

There can only be a conclusion made intellectually speaking that refers to the world in reflection of self . I tried to explain this to other's but it fell on deaf ears apart from G.S

You have yourself admitted that the unexplained cannot be explained but instead metaphors and analogies are offered that doesn't do any real justice . This is why I have said you cannot have a realisation that reveals that the world is a dream world . Self realisation isn't a realisation as such, Self realisation is what you are simply being that without any self reference or thought or reflection or comparison .

So when peeps speak about mindful things, then it's not anything to do directly with being what you are . Stuff relating to illusions are not realised . Stuff relating to Sanskrit absolutes are not realised . Nothing is realised per se . Everything is concluded within mind via the intellect, otherwise nothing would be made sense of .

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

No disrespect intended but it seems to me this is why you are having difficulty with what I post. I'm using intellect and language (analogy and metaphor) to convey the experiential and precisely because you cannot peek into my experience. I have no other way to relate it aside from intellect and language and both fall woefully short of the experience.

No disrespect taken, perhaps with what I have said in reply you understand the nature of mind and the nature of Realisation and how that differs from intellectual conclusions made .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ZainMd

When a mighty waves hit the shores.
The not so mighty bubbles are in a daze.
Where is my mighty body.
Ohh....how they missed the sea.
Or did they?

Hi Z,

Where do you get your inspiration from?


x daz x

[ZainMd]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hi Z,
Where do you get your inspiration from?
x daz x

I read with interest about self.
It just a lil pointer coming out of nowhere.
Just to share.
About the mighty wave("self" bodymind)
and the same bodymind got separated further
into many pieces with belief,culture,attachments,status & etc
while missing what is already here and now.
It kindner like a fish asking another, where is water.

Originally Posted by God-Like

I experienced a lot of sufferings at a point in my life that took me within myself . I undertook yoga and meditation on a daily basis and after about 8 years I transcended self, the mind, the world .

Within this timeframe I started to engage with the cosmos and the universal mind .

It wasn't my intention to Self realise, I didn't really know at this point what it was or meant, I was quite naturally drawn within myself to a place where there was no suffering .

My daily practice (which isn't now a practice) has carried on for 20 plus years .

I appreciate you asking me about my path/practice because much of what this thread has been about was peeps judging me about my lack of so called experience and realisations . It's ignorance of the highest degree .



This is the whole point JASG . I have asked the forum about what is realised that is beyond mind . I have explained that beyond the mind is beyond the thought of Self or non duality or the world .

There can only be a conclusion made intellectually speaking that refers to the world in reflection of self . I tried to explain this to other's but it fell on deaf ears apart from G.S

You have yourself admitted that the unexplained cannot be explained but instead metaphors and analogies are offered that doesn't do any real justice . This is why I have said you cannot have a realisation that reveals that the world is a dream world . Self realisation isn't a realisation as such, Self realisation is what you are simply being that without any self reference or thought or reflection or comparison .

So when peeps speak about mindful things, then it's not anything to do directly with being what you are . Stuff relating to illusions are not realised . Stuff relating to Sanskrit absolutes are not realised . Nothing is realised per se . Everything is concluded within mind via the intellect, otherwise nothing would be made sense of .



No disrespect taken, perhaps with what I have said in reply you understand the nature of mind and the nature of Realisation and how that differs from intellectual conclusions made .


x daz x

Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. As I've said before I think we're speaking to the same experience and the difficulty is it's beyond intellect and language. I can't peek into your experience and you can't peek into mine. Analogy and metaphor are but feeble attempts to put that experience into language, poor as they might be, but I can't unload actual experience into text. LOL!

That being said they are useful in a spiritual system, specifically traditional Advaita-Vedanta, to slowly guide the seeker along a structured path, however they do not stand alone. They must be bolstered and validated by practice and the remainder of the scriptures and also the voluminous works of commentary and interpretation. Lectures by actual ordained monks are a huge help too.

I know (or guess from previous posts) you take exception to the Neo-Advaita approach. It is very, very selective on the text/scripture it uses (pretty much select passages from only the Mandukya Karika) and totally eschews any and all practices. It speaks in absolutes and with no nuance and sows the confusion about unreal and illusion, and many who attend Satsang from these teachers (not ordained monks and probably like the one you mentioned who married) do take the meaning as literal, not understanding the richness and subtlety behind and surrounding this one tiny portion of the scripture. It's very, very dangerous taken alone and out of context. It is sometimes referred to as compulsive absolutization, nondual sickness or attachment to emptiness.

How did I come to all this? I went through a decade of Hell from 1998 to late 2007 where I hit absolute rock-bottom. Every aspect of my life crumbled to dust and I lost everything I valued. Not that I gave it serious consideration but the thought of ending it all came to mind. Call it a moment of clarity and it freaked me the Hell out.

In the early 90s I took a one year class in marital arts and I also dabbled with meditation because I thought it was cool, though I never took it very seriously but it always stayed in the back of my mind. When I did hit rock-bottom the one thing that kept me going was the intuition there had to be more, something else. That's when I picked up meditation again and in a serious way. I also started digging into consciousness and from every angle I could think of. Psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, meditation and even physics.

On top of all of that and best I can determine the key that unlocked the door was a video by Sadhguru I came across last summer where he talked about opening up just a small space between mind and consciousness. What struck me is I had been experiencing that space in deep meditation, especially choiceless awareness where there is no object of focus and mind is least engaged, if at all. I just wasn't recognizing it for what it was.

Prior to that I never really paid all that much attention to Hinduism and certainly not Advaita-Vedanta, but that changed. I started searching for answers and found the Vedanta NY YouTube channel and Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures were a real eye-opener. After a month or so the floodgate opened.

So yeah, my experience dovetails quite nicely with the teachings of traditional Advaita-Vedanta.

[muffin]

Originally Posted by God-Like

. How would it even be possible to self identify as being called MR Muffin and marry MRS Muffin when self identification is absent .

x daz x

Good afternoon daz



I asked a kid at work if he see muffin as a girls name, his answer was the same as Mrs muffin, yes.

But it a dogs name to me, she was looked and felt a little warm muffin straight out of the oven.

In the eye of the beholder

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by janielee

That's not true at all.

If it is not true, the only things left are deciet, lies and half truths. Spirituality is not about deceit, lies and half truths. Spirituality is about truth.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by janielee

Friend,

I respect that you see it the way you do. My "beliefs" are not based on beliefs or scriptures or this or that.
They're based on personal experience and that which is experienced is validated through scriptures and Masters i.e. yeah, they're right.

When you say something like all is God, that could be true (and is) but if you can't differentiate between ego and God, then you are in trouble. This is why no spiritual teacher past, present or future teaches that ego and God are the same, and to forget about it.

The One who is with God/Absolute (whatever you want to call it) can differentiate both, whereas the ego (small imaginary figment) cannot. So it's like are you looking from the top of the mountain on a helicopter, or are you looking up from a rockface. Vantage point matters. That's what spiritual practice is really about - Gnosis, knowing, intimate first hand revelation and knowledge (not borne of the intellect only).

That said, I have no real interest in debating any of this with you and respect that everyone has their own beliefs. I'm pleased and encouraged by all inquiries, but note to you that I've not seen intellectual queries be of much utilization, in effect.

Peace, and out,

JL

First, I will like to say, that I am not debating or arguing with you. We are simply having a discussion, where you are telling me what you believe and I am telling you what I believe.

You are the one whom is saying that I can't and don't differentiate between ego and God, and that is not true.

I have said that the ego outer self, which is the mind and body mental and emotional thinking of I am is conditioned and programmed by physical reality/society and is a part , aspect and tool of the higher/true self or atman which is 'God' manifested in individual (but not seperate) physical form as the feeling of I AM and which is consciousness and is not and can not be conditioned or programmed by physical reality/society.

The heart feeling of I AM/atman is the feeling of I AM in the eternal right here and right now and is unchanging, whereas the ego/mental and emotional sense of I am is changing, because it is being conditioned and programmed all the time by it's surroundings/environment.

If the programmed and conditioned ego/mental and emotional sense of I am stopped allowing him/her to being programmed and conditioned and manipulated the ego/mental and emotional sense of I am, will also be unchanging, exactly like the feeling of I AM/atman is unchanging, and the ego/mental and emotional sense of I am becomes one with the heart feeling of I AM/atman, so yes, in this context, the ego and the atman, 'god' and consciousness are one and the same. It is just the matter of uniting, integrating and balancing the ego/mental and emotional sense of I am with the heart feeling of I Am/atman.

This brings up the question of is the heart feeling of I AM/atman permanent or impermanent, does our heart feeling of I AM continue to live after we die? The answer is an obvious no. And that is because the heart is a physical organ.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey Mikey Mike,

When peeps take off their guru worshipping rose tinted glasses then they can see this . Some just don't want to see that realisations of Self or 'being simply what you are' beyond mind doesn't reveal that the world is like this or that, it doesn't reveal that the ego means a false self, it doesn't reflect the world is but a dream or what is impermanent is unreal and the permanence of Self is .

There isn't anything revealed . There is simply 'what you are' in all it's glory that can be likened to Love and Peace and Joy and Power and all these types of descriptors .

I do however understand why and how peeps join the dots and try and make sense of things post realisation but if peeps were honest and refer to what was actually realised per se then there would be nothing written or spoken of that directly relates that .

There is only what you are is what I concluded and that fits in with the concept of ONENESS so I understand how peeps think along these lines .. This I call a first stage or point of understanding of what you are .. You inherently know that everything is what you are for there is only that .

When you start to talk about dream worlds and illusory peeps and no one is here, this is an understanding that has been concluded by watering down the initial understanding ONENESS .

ONE not TWO is a further extention of the primary understanding .

Before you know it it's likened to Chinese whispers where what was originally said gets twisted and distorted the further down the line it gets .

But this doesn't seem to stop peeps believing it to be the ultimate Truth .

If we simply revert back to the original understanding and what was or wasn't realised then all will be clear .

When peeps cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears there is a mixture of expressions in place .

When you look at certain masters over the years they study the scriptures, whether it's Ramana, Adams, Niz or whomever .

It's not to say that there hasn't been great states of mind achieved or beyond self realisations .

If one understood what beyond actually means, then why would one read the scriptures of the mind and promote them as absolutes or ultimate truths?




x daz x

I hear you!

Yes all scriptures and teachings are of and for the mind, the same mind is used by the same people who read the scriptures and turn the mind, body, ego and etc into the bad guy/villian.

The comment you made about chinese whispers is so true. The longer and more a story, analogy and metaphor is subjectively interpreted, the more misconstrued and missunderstood they become.